 Truckers for Trump. As you might have heard, on Friday, a judge ordered Trump to pay $355 million for misrepresenting his wealth in applications for loans, applications for insurance, just generally business activities. $355 million. This is even the kind of cash that it is unlikely. Trump can come up with, particularly given that he's probably not as wealthy as he claims he is. This all a consequence of the fact that he is accused and found guilty of committing fraud, which involved basically lying about the value of properties to get when it came time to get mortgages and a variety of different loans. The tricky part about this ruling is that nobody lost any money around this. So the reality is it's very, very probable that Trump and his business associates in various levels lied about the value of properties and maybe lied extravagantly about the value of these properties when they went to get loans and when they went to buy insurance and things like that. That is probably all true. And that is indeed finding a fact that as Trump appeals this case, he can't appeal that finding a fact. What Trump will appeal is the $355 million that size of a penalty. And indeed, that penalty seems ridiculously high, even to me, not a Trump fan. But I worry about the clear anti-business signal that this is sending. I mean, it wasn't just to find a $355 million. There's an interest on top of that. It's probably closer to $450. And then on top of that, there's also a bunch of restrictions about who can run the companies and so on. But $355 million clearly is punitive. And it's punitive partially because Trump denied it all. And even after it was found guilty, it showed no remorse and then continued to pretend that nothing had happened, that everybody's the same. And then it treated the judge pretty harshly, harassed him and made fun of him and so on. And I think that the judge is taking it out on Trump. I think the $355 million is probably a dramatic exaggeration. I don't know what cases like this go for. That is what kind of penalties are excluded. But this seems to me, based on everything I know about corporate law and these kind of cases, exaggerated and seems to be kind of vindictive on the part of the judge. Again, no question, I think. And I think from the evidence and the judge certainty that Trump did commit fraud, but in other words, lied. Fraud is lying in a business transaction. And there was fraud. So then the question is, given that nobody lost any money, how do you determine penalties? The penalty should be given that nobody lost money. The penalty should have been significantly lower than this. It's still right, I think, to penalize for fraud, to prosecute for fraud, even though nobody's lost money, partially to deter such behavior in the person being accused and to deter such behavior in other businesses. So verdict is right. Penalty probably way too large. I wouldn't be surprised if, on appeal, they reduce the penalty or they send it back to the court to reconsider the penalty. And this could go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, in the past, taken cases about kind of exorbitant penalties that judges and juries have afflicted. They don't always take cases like that. So it depends on how ridiculous they think this is. But with regard to the fraud, again, I'm in no position to question the judge who has reviewed all the evidence. You have not. So a bunch of you can think, oh, yeah, no. He didn't commit fraud. How do I know? Because on MAGA News, it says he didn't commit fraud. So he must not have committed fraud. I still, on finding the facts, mostly think the justice system does a good job. And if it doesn't do a good job or if you doubt this, at the very most you can say is I don't know. But you certainly can't say he didn't commit fraud because the reality is you don't know. You don't know. All right. Let's see. Yeah, so with regard to this, there are truckers who are saying now, these are pro Trump truckers, who are saying that they're not driving to New York City. They're boycotting New York City. And because they are boycotting New York City, they are not going to drive in. And because they view New York City as evil, bad, because of this $350 million penalty to Trump. So this is just, again, truckers, just like Scott, who don't know what they're talking about, who don't know the law. I mean, you can disagree with $350 million and still acknowledge that, at best, you don't know. And probably, he did actually commit fraud. Fraud, by the way, does not require that somebody lose money. Fraud doesn't require that you don't pay your loans. Fraud requires, or proof of fraud, requires and only requires that you lie. And clearly, there was a lot of lying going on. So yeah, truckers out there protesting. Hard to tell how big this is. It's hard to tell how significant it is. And it's a bunch of Trump-banded caps yelling about F-leftists and how much they love Trump, whether this is a large movement, whether this will actually result in any kind of slowdown in New York. Of course, this isn't the only protest others are saying. They're never going to go visit New York. They're not going to do business with New York. So they're going to be a bunch of different ways in which people express their frustration and express the fact that they think this is a huge injustice and therefore Trump should not be prosecuted and should have been found not guilty because they're all experts in the law and they understand the law thoroughly. All right, let's see. Truckers, of course, have every right to do what they're doing. You have every right to boycott New York if you want to boycott New York. Go for it. I think it makes a lot more sense to boycott Texas. Given Texas' Byzantine dark ages abortion laws, it would make a lot more sense to boycott Texas and it makes sense to boycott New York, but it doesn't make sense to boycott either one of those states at this point. But certainly I would consider what Texas laws about abortion are 1,000 times worse than whatever Trump is facing in terms of this foreign case.